Skip to content


Srinivasa Mudali Vs. Ponnambalam and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1882)ILR5Mad376
AppellantSrinivasa Mudali
RespondentPonnambalam and ors.
Excerpt:
criminal breach of contract - act xiii of 1859--procedure. - - 1. a contract was entered into between the accused and complainant that the accused should beat tom-tom during a certain festival which was to have continued from the 31st may to the 9th june 1882, which contract the accused failed to carry out......contract the accused failed to carry out. on the 9th june, or the last day of the festival, the tahsildar magistrate made an order under act xiii of 1859 that the accused should perform the work which they had agreed to do for the complainant, but without specifying within what time, or during what period, they were to do the work. after the order was made, and on the same day, the accused, whose original defence had been that they had no tom-tom with them, said they could not render the service which they had been ordered to perform, and thereupon the tahsildar magistrate proceeded at once to sentence them to ten days' rigorous imprisonment for non-compliance with his order.2. there was no complaint that his order was not complied with and no statements were taken from the accused......
Judgment:

Muttusami Ayyar and Tarrant, JJ.

1. A contract was entered into between the accused and complainant that the accused should beat tom-tom during a certain festival which was to have continued from the 31st May to the 9th June 1882, which contract the accused failed to carry out. On the 9th June, or the last day of the festival, the Tahsildar Magistrate made an order under Act XIII of 1859 that the accused should perform the work which they had agreed to do for the complainant, but without specifying within what time, or during what period, they were to do the work. After the order was made, and on the same day, the accused, whose original defence had been that they had no tom-tom with them, said they could not render the service which they had been ordered to perform, and thereupon the Tahsildar Magistrate proceeded at once to sentence them to ten days' rigorous imprisonment for non-compliance with his order.

2. There was no complaint that his order was not complied with and no statements were taken from the accused. If a reasonable time had been mentioned in the order, the accused might have complied with it. The procedure of the Tahsildar Magistrate was irregular and illegal, and the convictions and sentences are quashed and set aside.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //